JUDGMENT 1. The facts of this case are shortly these : The Plaintiff granted to the Defendant's predecessor in title a howladari lease of a permanent character. The lands bordered upon the river Meghna, and the Defendant made excavations in a piece of land near the river bank for the purpose of making bricks and for the protection of another piece of land belonging to him situate elsewhere. The lands on which the excavations were made were then diluviated by the action of the river, and thereupon the present suit was instituted by the Plaintiff, the lessor, for the purpose of restraining the Defendant from doing similar acts in future, and for damages caused to him by the wrongful act of the Defendant. The suit, however, has been dismissed by the Court below upon the ground that, upon the terms of the lease granted to the Defendant's predecessor in title, the Defendant was entitled to deal with the lands in any way he pleased, and necessarily to make the excavations in question. 2. We have looked into the terms of the lease in question, and it may be said upon that lease that the lessee had power to make excavations in the lands demised; but it could hardly be said that it intended that the Defendant was at liberty to use the land in such a way as to cause its destruction. It appears to us that, if the act of the Defendant was of such a character as to cause substantial damage to the property demised, and that, by reason of his act, the diluviation was facilitated, and the land was thus lost by the action of the river, the Plaintiff would be entitled to bring a suit against the Defendant for an injunction to restrain him from repeating such act in future. In this view of the matter, we think that the case should be sent back to the lower Appellate Court with the view that this matter may be determined. If the Court finds upon a review of the evidence in the case, that the act of the Defendant was of the character stated by the Plaintiff, the latter would be entitled to an injunction, as also the damage caused by the wrongful act of the Defendant. Otherwise, the suit should be dismissed. Costs will abide the result.